If you believe in Moore’s Law then you better not say so in STS (science, technology, and society) class. Unless you enjoy being told that your opinion is wrong. While there were other concepts covered in the class, technological determinism (which is manifested in Moore’s Law) was the teachers’ favorite to make fun of.
Technological determinism basically is the thought that technology determines society and evolves in a linear fashion on its own accord. Now, I don’t see why anyone would think that we don’t have a say in technology’s evolution considering we are the ones that make it. All the same, believing in technological determinism to a degree is perfectly reasonable since technology does have an impact on society (we later talked about a theory called technological momentum that recognizes that technology both shapes and is shaped by society to different degrees during its design). But you better not “believe” in Moore’s Law.
Regardless of how true technological determinism is, I have to wonder if it matters how true it is versus how true anyone believes it to be. If I were to think in a technologically determinist manner, would that have a negative impact on my life or career? Alternatively, if I believed that technology had no impact on society, would that have a different impact?
I’d argue that as long as you’re not too extreme in your opinion of the effect technology has on society, your view will not impact your career. Thinking that technology develops on its own without any impact from society at all will probably ruin your career as an engineer since you (as a part of society) will have no say in what the new advance in technology looks like. And if you think that technology has no say in what can be designed, then you need to go back and take a lot of science classes (hint: perpetual motion machines aren’t possible no matter what society does).
But it seems like most any reasonable person will not have one of these extreme views. So, is learning about technological determinism a waste of our time? While beating up the idea for weeks was a waste of our time (honestly, we’re smarter than that – we don’t need weeks of lectures to get a simple concept), hearing the theory and not only how it’s not true but also how it has some credence is useful. I never would have thought about the degree to which technology affect each other if different theories were not introduced. Just like any other worthwhile question, it’s a question of where the system of technology and society sits on a spectrum between technologically and socially determined. It’s not a question of whether the spectrum exists.
After all, Moore’s Law has a lot of data backing it up.
How did Moore's law get to be a standard bearer for "technologicial determinism"? On its face it was just an observational forecast that happened to be right for 50+ calendar years (how many internet years is that?).
ReplyDeleteThere's seems to be an element of assumed social determinism in technological development, e.g the forecasts of HG Wells, Turing, and those futurists who beleive we will have chips implanted in our brian. In any event, Moore's law had to presuppose that society would want faster and faster results.
FYI, the Mayan's blow up in 2012, Moore's law in 2013.
You're correct that there is an element of social determinism - if we didn't value smaller and faster electronics, then the new technologies wouldn't be invented. But that's not what Moore's Law says. The issue with Moore's Law is that it claims that this advance in transistor technology will happen [regardless of whether or not we want it].
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that Moore's Law (it would probably better to call it a theory) has been fairly accurate based on the data, using it as a "standard bearer for 'technological determinism'" has come about do to people's idea that it is not our values but rather the technology itself (or maybe fate?) that has led to these advances.
Also, the world already ended in 2000, didn't you notice?
I think you STS-ers are picking on Moore's Law which states a "doubling of chip performance every two years regardless of whether or not we want it."
ReplyDeleteI think its safe to assume that Gordon Moore contemplated that society would demand more and more computing power; even if he assumed that we had all the computing power we needed in 1965, he probably also assumed it be cheaper for Intel in the long run to deliver one chip instead of 512. These are unstated but inherent components of his law, and it seems unfair to remove those and then declare his law to be untrue/invalid.
Did your class touch on the theories in the book Guns, Germs and Steel re the advancement of western civilization? Maybe some light reading over the Christmas holiday - its only about 900 pages.
And finally, what's the premise of your STS class (in 30 seconds or less)? One could argue that engineers should just invent, and leave it up to the legal overlords (i.e., lawyers) to draft the social compact that keeps life from being nasty, brutish, and short and keeps everybody from having a taser, texting while driving, and having three human clones. Maybe I could be a guest lecturer next semester?
I agree with you that treating Moore's Law this way is slightly unfair because it's probably not how he meant it. However, I think the point our professor was particularly picking on remains valid to an extent as well: that the idea of technological determinism that is embedded in Moore's Law (if read more literally than normally)is not complete.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as it might interest you, our professors expressed the opinion that you can't get a job in most places without "believing in Moore's Law." Specifically, they were referring to believing in the viewpoint that chip sizes *would* (without question) be made smaller. I would argue against that as you certainly can get a job by believing that chip sizes will get smaller because we value faster and smaller devices. But, in support of their idea, if you believe that we will not make smaller chips, then your boss may view you as short-sighted (at best).
We did not touch on that subject.
As UVA really likes to emphasize big-picture (such as managing and communication skills) in engineering, the premise of the STS class is to make us think about the ethical questions engineers face and to convince us that society and technology interact to a much larger extent than a lot of people believe.
I'm not taking the class next semester but I can easily tell them if you really want to come in.